Sudarshan S Chawathe <xxxxxx@eip10.org> schrieb am Do., 12. Juli 2018 um 01:06 Uhr:

I will echo Alex's sentiments as my own too: It would be very nice to
have ordered sets as a final SRFI and hopefully in the large standard as
well. I too have found them useful. It would be especially strange, I
think, to have ordered maps but not ordered sets.

I was hoping that one of the authors of the closely related SRFIs would
adopt SRFI 153. (I realize that may fall under the "no good deed goes
unpunished" banner.) If there are no other volunteers, or if additional
help is needed by a volunteer, then I will be glad to volunteer my
services.

The repository of SRFI 146 contains an implemention of SRFI 113 as a thin layer over SRFI 146. I think it makes most sense to implement SRFI 153 in terms of the SRFI 146 interface as well (and not using the RB-tree implementation in the repository of SRFI 146 directly).

I'm not totally reluctant of providing the reference implementation of SRFI 153, but I will have to finish SRFI 154/155 first (which will happen very soon).

Marc

Regards,

-chaw

> From: John Cowan <xxxxxx@ccil.org>
> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 18:27:08 -0400
> Subject: Re: Withdrawn SRFI 153: Ordered Sets
> To: "Arthur A. Gleckler" <xxxxxx@speechcode.com>
> Cc: Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>, xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org
>
> The part of the implementation that's just a wrapper around mappings is
> available in the repo. But the entries in the TODO file represent stuff
> that works only on ordered collections, and therefore has to go down into
> the B-tree implementation in the (nieper *) libraries. That's what I
> decided I wasn't interested in pursuing.
>
> The SRFI itself is indeed in good shape.
>
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:21 AM Alex Shinn <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Isn't this just a thin wrapper around SRFI 146? I do need ordered sets
> >> for one of my projects, if there's not much to be done it would be nice =
> to
> >> finalize this.
> >>
> >
> > =E2=80=8BI respect John's decision. By the time SRFI 153 was withdrawn, =
> it was
> > over a year old, far past the official deadline for an SRFI, and he had p=
> ut
> > a lot of work into it. One good thing=E2=80=8B about our process is that=
> all that
> > work is preserved, so if anyone decides to make another attempt at this
> > idea, he won't have to start from scratch.
> >
> > John, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the implementation that remains.
> > The document itself is in good shape, right?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >